You've somehow managed to originate two insanely useful pieces of software: Linux, and Git.
Do you think there's anything in your work habits, your approach to choosing projects, etc., that have helped you achieve that level of productivity? Or is it just the traditional combination of talent, effort, and luck?
Git is like any tool, it's useful under two conditions.. 1. It's the correct tool for the job at hand... AND 2. The person holding the tool has the necessary skill to use it correctly.
In my opinion, git is a useful tool for the designed function, however, it takes a bit more skill than most tools of it's kind to use effectively.
I think we know what that means if you don't find git useful.... You either are using the wrong tool, or you don't know what you are doing...
If it's hard for a new user of Git to come to know what he is doing, then perhaps some abstraction needs to be created around Git that's easier for the average new user to understand.
I used to have issues with git, but the problem turned out to be that I didn't understand HOW the tool does what it does. It isn't the tool, it's the preconceived notions that folks bring to the table which don't match how the tool works.
You cannot fix this by wrapping git in some wrapper that makes it look like subversion or CVS...
Well...In the commercial software world users are still at fault, it's just that they have paid fees for support so the vendor hires people to answer the same inane (I didn't care to read the user's guide) questions over and over and be nice about it.
I'll be happy to consult with you on your problems with git... My fee is $200/hour with a three hour minimum per question, paid in advance. I promise to be nice, even if you ask the same question 50 times in a row..
I realize you didn't claim to be more helpful than any random person, but let me ask you anyway: how many newbies have you helped today? If none, why not? Doing so would be a much more useful contribution than hinting at the "user-hostileness" (I couldn't come up with anything better right now) problem on/..
A good abstraction leads a user towards understanding, no matter what his level; a good UI reflects the abstraction, leading the user to use it properly, again, no matter what his or her level.
Git may have good abstractions (I'll take your word for it), but it has no UI to reflect it and so is opaque to many. In my attempts to use git, I've grown tired of wading through shitty web pages all of which give examples of use, but no abstraction description and no description of how these abstractions are to be p
I like Git. However, the UI (Git GUi + gitk) absolutely sucks. I use Git Extensions on top of git to get a much saner UI. Also, it seems to me that when using git, there are multiple ways to get to the same result, and different people prefer different methods. Git also has a habit of getting into weird states where new users can't figure out what's wrong (middle of a merge is the prime example).
Also, you need to remember that GIT is designed to be self contained locally and you "push" and "pull" changes to/from public repos. My biggest problem when shifting from SVN to GIT was that all your changes are made LOCALLY to your local repository and not to the common shared repository. That means your commit is only on your local system in that directory tree and no place else. Now if you want to have a shared repository and work with others, you have to carefully th
There are GUI's that take most of the work out of your hand. Most people only need to pull and push anyway. We have a group that uses it for documents and whatnot, they are non-IT folk.
In my opinion, git is a useful tool for the designed function
One issue is that git suffers a bit from "one true way" syndrome. Linus wrote git to deal with the workflow he prefers for managing Linux development, and the people who are maintaining it have very strongly held opinions on how version control "should" be structured. This means that if you're handling version control the way that Linus does, git has terrific support. The other consequence is that if you're trying to implement a version control scheme which doesn't match Linus & the maintainers' notion
I've been using git for the last 2 years and am reasonably comfortable with it. I'm using only 'commit', 'add', 'branch', 'checkout', 'push', 'pull' commands for my daily workflow. Git has one of the most weird and unintuitive command line user-interfaces I have ever used. It's fascinating in a sense. It's like one of those big, many bladed fantasy knives, when all you need is a good kitchen knife. Sure, I can slice a tomato with it, but it's too easy to cut yourself.
Ideas and opinions are like assholes, everyone has them. He implemented two products from a sea of ideas, and did a better job of it than the other competing implementations, to the point where industry giants (Microsoft, Apple, Perforce, IBM/ClearCase, countless unix providers, etc.) are still trying to catch up.
I think that's why we're interested in his opinions rather than the giants on whose backs he stood on.
So when Steve Jobs has a ton of excellent ideas, coupled with his insane attention to details and precision tech and design... everyone calls him a copy and plagiarizer?!
Linux retards are the biggest bunch of hypocrites stuck in the 80's.
This is how progress works. Shoulders of giants etc. I think he deserves all the praise he gets for finding out what ideas to copy and how to make them succeed.
Linus - My observation is that folks who're blindingly successful have a degree of asshole-ness to them. Jobs, Gates, Musk, Torvalds. Probably the US founding fathers, and Einstein and Edison. All the right degree of 'f em, I know what needs to be done.'
Is that a correct assessment of you? do you have an external face, and one that is the more real you, or are you an asshole through and through?
Jobs, Gates, Musk, Torvalds. Probably the US founding fathers, and Einstein and Edison.
Thats a stretch! All of those men were brilliant high achievers, but only one group was ruthless enough to launch a war that killed a hundred thousand people, mostly their own, and achieved no obvious gain except to the 1%-ers. (Were Canadian commoners so much worse off?) Much as I admire the intellect of people like Jefferson and Adams, they took assholeness (ruthlessness?) to a level that makes Bill Gates look like a saint.
Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie should be given credit as the "originators" of Linux... After all, if a painter copies another artist do you give them credit for being the originator?
Git is wonderful for text files but horrible for (large) binary files. Will git ever be patched or re-architectured to allow it to handle large binary files better instead of them clogging up the history?
I just asked myself... what would John DeLorean do?
-- Raoul Duke
Productivity (Score:5, Interesting)
You've somehow managed to originate two insanely useful pieces of software: Linux, and Git.
Do you think there's anything in your work habits, your approach to choosing projects, etc., that have helped you achieve that level of productivity? Or is it just the traditional combination of talent, effort, and luck?
Re: (Score:0, Troll)
Git is actually the opposite of useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Git is actually the opposite of useful.
Citation needed.
Re:Productivity (Score:5, Informative)
Git is actually the opposite of useful.
Git is like any tool, it's useful under two conditions.. 1. It's the correct tool for the job at hand... AND 2. The person holding the tool has the necessary skill to use it correctly.
In my opinion, git is a useful tool for the designed function, however, it takes a bit more skill than most tools of it's kind to use effectively.
I think we know what that means if you don't find git useful.... You either are using the wrong tool, or you don't know what you are doing...
Abstraction (Score:2)
If it's hard for a new user of Git to come to know what he is doing, then perhaps some abstraction needs to be created around Git that's easier for the average new user to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
What? And make it work like CVS?
I used to have issues with git, but the problem turned out to be that I didn't understand HOW the tool does what it does. It isn't the tool, it's the preconceived notions that folks bring to the table which don't match how the tool works.
You cannot fix this by wrapping git in some wrapper that makes it look like subversion or CVS...
Re: Abstraction (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the user's fault of course. OSS is such a joy with such happy helpful people.
Re: (Score:2)
Well...In the commercial software world users are still at fault, it's just that they have paid fees for support so the vendor hires people to answer the same inane (I didn't care to read the user's guide) questions over and over and be nice about it.
I'll be happy to consult with you on your problems with git... My fee is $200/hour with a three hour minimum per question, paid in advance. I promise to be nice, even if you ask the same question 50 times in a row..
Re: (Score:0)
I realize you didn't claim to be more helpful than any random person, but let me ask you anyway: how many newbies have you helped today? If none, why not? Doing so would be a much more useful contribution than hinting at the "user-hostileness" (I couldn't come up with anything better right now) problem on /..
Re: (Score:0)
If your users are commit'ing stuff to your version control system, you've got bigger problems than how user friendly the VCS is.
Git is written by developers, for developers. That's why it feels like a tool that was never intended for users.
Re: (Score:2)
A good abstraction leads a user towards understanding, no matter what his level; a good UI reflects the abstraction, leading the user to use it properly, again, no matter what his or her level.
Git may have good abstractions (I'll take your word for it), but it has no UI to reflect it and so is opaque to many. In my attempts to use git, I've grown tired of wading through shitty web pages all of which give examples of use, but no abstraction description and no description of how these abstractions are to be p
Re: (Score:0)
I like Git.
However, the UI (Git GUi + gitk) absolutely sucks. I use Git Extensions on top of git to get a much saner UI.
Also, it seems to me that when using git, there are multiple ways to get to the same result, and different people prefer different methods.
Git also has a habit of getting into weird states where new users can't figure out what's wrong (middle of a merge is the prime example).
Re: (Score:2)
Try this: http://www.gitguys.com/ [gitguys.com]
Also, you need to remember that GIT is designed to be self contained locally and you "push" and "pull" changes to/from public repos. My biggest problem when shifting from SVN to GIT was that all your changes are made LOCALLY to your local repository and not to the common shared repository. That means your commit is only on your local system in that directory tree and no place else. Now if you want to have a shared repository and work with others, you have to carefully th
Re: (Score:2)
There are GUI's that take most of the work out of your hand. Most people only need to pull and push anyway. We have a group that uses it for documents and whatnot, they are non-IT folk.
Re: (Score:0)
In my opinion, git is a useful tool for the designed function
One issue is that git suffers a bit from "one true way" syndrome. Linus wrote git to deal with the workflow he prefers for managing Linux development, and the people who are maintaining it have very strongly held opinions on how version control "should" be structured. This means that if you're handling version control the way that Linus does, git has terrific support. The other consequence is that if you're trying to implement a version control scheme which doesn't match Linus & the maintainers' notion
Re: (Score:0)
and 3. You don't actually try to do anything with it.
Re: (Score:0)
I've been using git for the last 2 years and am reasonably comfortable with it. I'm using only 'commit', 'add', 'branch', 'checkout', 'push', 'pull' commands for my daily workflow. Git has one of the most weird and unintuitive command line user-interfaces I have ever used. It's fascinating in a sense. It's like one of those big, many bladed fantasy knives, when all you need is a good kitchen knife. Sure, I can slice a tomato with it, but it's too easy to cut yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Git is useful and obtuse, which is the most satisfying kind of useful.
Re: (Score:-1)
Answer: You copy insanely useful ideas from others, and then let people erroneously attribute the developments to you personally.
Re: (Score:3)
Ideas and opinions are like assholes, everyone has them. He implemented two products from a sea of ideas, and did a better job of it than the other competing implementations, to the point where industry giants (Microsoft, Apple, Perforce, IBM/ClearCase, countless unix providers, etc.) are still trying to catch up.
I think that's why we're interested in his opinions rather than the giants on whose backs he stood on.
Re: (Score:-1)
Oh really ?!
So when Steve Jobs has a ton of excellent ideas, coupled with his insane attention to details and precision tech and design...
everyone calls him a copy and plagiarizer?!
Linux retards are the biggest bunch of hypocrites stuck in the 80's.
Re: (Score:1)
Like Unix people did with Multics?
Re: (Score:0)
Except in that case it's the same people. And they learned from their Multics experience how to do it better.
Thompson and Ritchie deserve every ounce of credit they get... and probably some they don't get.
Re: (Score:0)
This is how progress works. Shoulders of giants etc. I think he deserves all the praise he gets for finding out what ideas to copy and how to make them succeed.
Re: Productivity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait... you left out subsurface!
What I'd like to know is... what else is up your sleeve?
Asshole-ness required (Re:Productivity (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Jobs, Gates, Musk, Torvalds. Probably the US founding fathers, and Einstein and Edison.
Thats a stretch! All of those men were brilliant high achievers, but only one group was ruthless enough to launch a war that killed a hundred thousand people, mostly their own, and achieved no obvious gain except to the 1%-ers. (Were Canadian commoners so much worse off?)
Much as I admire the intellect of people like Jefferson and Adams, they took assholeness (ruthlessness?) to a level that makes Bill Gates look like a saint.
Re: (Score:0)
Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie should be given credit as the "originators" of Linux... After all, if a painter copies another artist do you give them credit for being the originator?
Re: (Score:2)
I would also add:
Git is wonderful for text files but horrible for (large) binary files. Will git ever be patched or re-architectured to allow it to handle large binary files better instead of them clogging up the history?